Está en la página 1de 10

DISCOURSE MARKERS?

AN AREA OF CONFUSION
YANG, Shanru*
Newcastle University, UK
s.yang2@ncl.ac.uk
Fecha de recepcin:
14 de marzo de 2012
Fecha de aceptacin:
23 de abril de 2012

Abstract: This article investigates previous studies on discourse markers and problematizes the
field in terms of definition, classification and characteristics. Due to different research
perspectives, there has always been confusion and disagreement in the terminology and
analysis to discourse markers. As one important interactional feature in social conversation,
discourse markers work inside and outside the discourse and reflect the interwoven
interactions among the participants and context. Despite the intense studies, discourse
markers in Chinese, on the other hand, are still under investigation. The study also raises
research attention on the use of discourse markers in pedagogical settings, especially in
teacher talk. In classroom discourse, most related research is limited to second language
acquisition. Hence it is important to conduct research on discourse markers in teacher
spoken discourse and explore their detailed functions in classroom interaction.
Key words: Discourse markers problematization pedagogical settings
Resumen: Este artculo indaga en los estudios previos sobre marcadores del discurso y trata
sobre la problemtica asociada a su definicin, clasificacin y caractersticas. Debido a
diferentes perspectivas de anlisis, ha existido siempre confusin y desacuerdo en torno a
la terminologa que se aplica en el anlisis de los marcadores del discurso. Como rasgos
interactivos esenciales para la conversacin social, los marcadores funcionan dentro y fuera
del discurso, y reflejan las interacciones imbricadas entre los participantes y el contexto.
Pese a los exhaustivos estudios que se han llevado a cabo sobre este tema, los marcadores
del discurso en chino mandarn han recibido an poca atencin. Este trabajo se centra,
adems, en el uso de los marcadores discursivos en contextos pedaggicos, especialmente
en la intervencin del docente. En el discurso en el aula, la mayora de la investigacin se
ha limitado a la adquisicin de la segunda lengua. Resulta fundamental iniciar la

Shanru Yang is a PhD candidate from School of Education, Communication, and Language
Sciences, Newcastle University, UK. Her research interests include classroom discourse, teacher
development, corpus studies and mixed methods.

Los marcadores del discurso en espaol y en chino mandarn, Francisco J. RODRGUEZ


MUOZ (ed.), Almera: Universidad de Almera, 2012 (= Philologica Urcitana. Revista
Semestral de Iniciacin a la Investigacin en Filologa, vol. 7, Septiembre 2012, ISSN:
1989-6778), 37-44

38

YANG, Shanru
investigacin sobre los marcadores que utilizan los profesores en el discurso oral y explorar
sus funciones en la interaccin que se produce en el aula.

Palabras clave: Marcadores del discurso problemtica contextos pedaggicos

DISCOURSE MARKERS? AN AREA OF CONFUSION

37

1. INTRODUCTION
There are a growing number of studies and research interest on linguistic items like you
know, okay and well that people use in written and spoken context since Schiffrin (1987)
highlighted their significance. Mostly referred to as discourse markers (henceforth DMs),
DMs not only have grammatical functions but also work as effective interactional features,
especially in spoken conversation (Schiffrin 1987; Maschler, 1998; Fraser, 1999). The
frequency and number of DMs that people use is significant compared with other word forms
(Fung and Carter, 2007). DMs play an important role in understanding discourse and
information progression (Schiffrin, 1987). Due to their multi-grammaticality and multifunctionality, DMs work inside and outside the discourse and reflect the interwoven
interactions among the participants and context (Maschler, 1998). Nevertheless, there has
hardly been any agreement in the literature of DMs.
Since the 1970s, there has been an increasing number of research to investigate DMs
across different languages (Schourup, 1999). Many studies concentrate on specific or a set of
English DMs (Blakemore, 1992; Ariel, 1998; Jucker and Smith, 1998; Fraser, 1999; Schiffrin,
1987, 2003; Redeker, 1990), while there are also numerous researches interested in
equivalent Non-English DMs, including Catalan (Gonzlez, 2004), Chinese (Chen, 2001;
Feng, 2008; Wei, 2011), French (Hansen, 2006), Finnish (Hakulinen, 1998), Greek (Ifantidou,
2000; Archakis, 2001), German (Gnthner, 2000), Hebrew (Maschler, 1998; Ziv, 1998),
Indonesian (Wouk, 2001), Japanese (Takahara, 1998; Suzuki, 1998), Korean (Park, 1998),
Spanish (de Fina, 1997) and so on. Spoken contexts investigated include social interview
(Schiffrin, 1987; Trester, 2009), family/friends conversation (Maschler, 1998; Fuller, 2003),
telephone talk (Bolden, 2006), film scene (Cuenca, 2008) and psychotherapeutic talk (Tay,
2011).
2. PROBLEMATIZATION
DMs have a wide range of possible related labels including lexical markers, discourse
particles, utterance particles, semantic conjuncts, continuatives. The reason for the wide
range of terminology and definitions is that DMs are inherently problematic and difficult to
define or characterise (Schourup, 1999). Referring to as pragmatic markers (PMs), Fraser
(1999) proposes a grammatical-pragmatic understanding towards the linking feature of DMs
between discourse segments. Blakemores (1992) relevance theory, on the other hand,
perceives that DMs are only expressions with procedural meaning that constrains the
utterance.
In addition to the disagreement on definition, the membership in the class of DMs also
has difficulty to meet an agreement among different categorizations. Confusions are found in
unaligned sub-categories as well as mismatches between definition and classification. Some
DMs are included on one definition while others are not. Even on the agreed ones,
disagreement arises in terms of sub-classes and applications. As Schourup (1999) suggests,
the discussion of classificatory disagreement originates from the multiplicity in definition

38

YANG, Shanru

stated earlier. Variations in different frameworks leave DMs remain at issue regarding to
inconvenient labelling other than DMs, definition, categorization, selection criteria in subcategories and grammatical status. Macro-markers like what I am going to talk about today or
lets go back to the beginning, as discussed in Chaudron and Richards (1986) can be excluded
due to identification difficulty in syntax.
Though DMs functions vary across discourse contexts, to establish a set of criteria that
can distinguish DMs from other grammatical items is crucial before discussing descriptive
features they entail (Jucker and Ziv, 1998; Aijmer, 2002). Adapted from Brinton (1996),
Fung (2003) and Mller (2004), basic characterisers of DMs can be divided into diagnostic
features and descriptive features, among which the former provides the crucial test for DMs
(Jucker and Ziv, 1998). The division can be summarized as follows (Table 1):
Diagnostic features:
a) Lexis: multi-resources, fixed/short/small, micro-markers;
b) Prosody: pause, intonation, stress, accompanied with non-word verbalization;
c) Syntax: flexible in position, independent between clauses, detachable, turninitial or stand-alone position in referential relation;
d) Semantics: independent, optional, no effect on truth condition;
e) Indexicality: anaphoric or cataphoric between discourse units.
Descriptive features:
f) Grammaticality: marginal categories, controversial grammatical status;
g) Multi-functionality: referential, structural, interpersonal, cognitive level;
h) Stylistics: high frequency/diversity, repetition, stranding, cluster and
collocation;
i) Sociolinguistics: context-dependent, orality.
Table 1. List of characteristics of DMs

There are five criteria under diagnostic features to help identify whether an item is a DM,
despite the fact that controversy may still exist under each sub-set (Maschler, 1998). DMs are
lexically constrained in that they are small, short and fixed linguistic items (Brinton, 1996;
Gnthner, 2000). The prosodic contours are phonologically reduced and tend to form a
separate tone group (Brinton, 1996; Jucker and Ziv, 1998). DMs are independent linguistic
entities both syntactically and semantically. In most cases, however, it is common to find
DMs in turn-initial position to signal upcoming information (Othman, 2010). Descriptive
features illustrate additional features that most DMs share including grammaticality, multifunctionality, stylistic and sociolinguistic characteristics (Brinton, 1996; Lenk, 1998; Mller,
2004). The multiplicity of DMs distinguishes their functions at various levels of interaction,
in which are included structural, referential, interpersonal and cognitive domains (Jucker and
Ziv, 1998; Frank-Job, 2006; Fung and Carter, 2007).

DISCOURSE MARKERS? AN AREA OF CONFUSION

39

3. PREVIOUS APPROACHES
The terminology, classification and characteristics of DMs, have been reached
numerously from different research domains, among which discourse coherence (Schiffrin,
1987. 2003), pragmatics (Fraser, 1999), relevance theory (Blakemore, 1992) and systemic
functional grammar (Halliday and Hasan, 1976) are the most influential ones (Schourup,
1999; Jucker and Ziv, 1998; Frank-Job, 2006; Cohen, 2007; Han, 2008).
The first attempt is discourse coherence model founded by Schiffrin (1987), as
mentioned above. According to Schiffrin (1987), five planes within the framework can be
distinguished according to different levels of coherence functions that DMs play, namely
exchange structure, including adjacency-pair like question and answer, action structure
where speech acts are situated, ideational structure, which is viewed from semantics as idea
exchange and participation framework, i.e. the interaction and relation between the speaker
and listener, and lastly information state that focuses on participates cognitive capacities
(Fraser, 1999; Schiffrin, 1987, 2003). Studies based on this model, however, emphasize more
on discourse coherence rather than local context.
The second approach proposed by Fraser himself, is a solely grammatical-pragmatic
perspective (Fraser, 1999, p. 936). He believed that DMs not only function in textual
coherence but also signal the speakers intention to the next turn in the preceding utterances.
Compared with the coherence model, Fraser (1999) contributed to a more complete
generalization and a pragmatic view towards different markers, including DMs, in a wider
context rather than structural organization. In Chinese classroom environment, Liu (2006)
conducted a pragmatic analysis on one Chinese literature class and concluded that DMs used
in teacher talk have five major textual functions: connect, transfer, generalize, explain and
repair. In the process of constructing classroom context, he argued that DMs contribute to the
functions of discussion, emotion control and adjust of social relationship (Liu, 2006). This
conclusion yet has weak data support and is over simplified without relating much to the
classroom context. Similar to Fraser, Blakemore (1992) adopted relevance theory from
pragmatics and claimed that DMs only have procedural meaning (p. 936) and are limited to
specific context. Referring DMs as discourse connectives, Blakemore focused more on their
presentation in discourse processing and segments interrelation (Fung and Carter, 2007).
Another recent approach is through systemic functional linguistics (SFL) founded by M.
A. K. Halliday (Halliday and Hasan, 1976). Though Halliday and Hasan (1976) didnt
brought up the issue of DMs directly, in the analysis of textual function, they investigated
words like and, but, I mean, to sum up etc. as sentence connectives that perform an important
part in semantic cohesion. DMs are regarded as effective cohesive devices with various
meanings and functions in segment organization. The study is primarily based on written
texts yet it still sheds some light on the importance of DMs in function and meaning
construction (Schiffrin et al, 2003).
As Yu (2008) noticed, studies on DMs mainly focus on syntactical-structural level or
pragmatic coherence while researches on features, categorizations and contexts are scare.
How to relate the functions of DMs to their local context and go beyond the context should

40

YANG, Shanru

also be researched. There are also other alternative methods. For instance, a dynamicinteractional approach (Frank-job, 2006) is proposed to view DMs as a developmental
process of pragmaticalization which underlies the multi-functionality of DMs in metacommunication. Schleef (2004), on the other hand, investigates the frequency and distribution
of DMs from a sociolinguistic perspective. As Fischer (2006) points out, a presentation of
different approaches is the fundamental step to understand the heterogeneity of the field and
to identify those parameters in which the various approaches differ, as well as the common
assumptions (p.4).

4. DISCOURSE MARKERS IN CHINESE


Though, DMs across languages has been the focus of previous studies as it is discussed
before. A detail systemic description of DMs in Chinese is still under investigation (Feng,
2008). Studies on Chinese DMs tend to undertake pre-existed analytic and theoretical
framework without taking too much consideration of the symbolic nature of the language
itself (Su, 2002; Wang et al, 2007; Wei, 2011).
Feng (2008) presents a typology of pragmatic markers in Chinese. In his discussion,
there are four properties relating to their characteristics, namely, non-truth-conditionality,
propositional scope, syntactic dispensability, and semantic dependency. A distinction
between conceptual pragmatic markers and non-conceptual pragmatic markers are made on
the basis of inherent semantic meanings (Feng, 2008).
Conceptual pragmatic markers:
a)
Epistemic pragmatic markers: yexu (perhaps), shishishang (in fact),

wokan (I think), xianran (obviously).


b)
Evaluative pragmatic markers: jingqideshi (amazingly), yuchundeshi
(stupidly), congmingdeshi (cleverly).
Non-conceptual pragmatic markers:
a)
Contrastive pragmatic markers: danshi (but), raner (however), buguo
(but), buliao (unexpectedly).
b)
Elaborative pragmatic markers: yejiushishuo (that is to say), biru (for
example), tongyang (similarly), youqi (particularly).
c)
Inferential pragmatic markers: yinwei (because), suoyi (so).
Despite the fact that there is no given definition of DMs in Chinese, the above
classification is in fact problematic in terms of clarification. There is an inconsistency and
restriction in categorization. Whats more, a group of lexical items including utterance
modifiers such as laoshishuo/jiang (honestly speaking), domain adverbs, temporal
connectives and ordinals, second-person forms, modal verbs, connective he/yu/gen/ji (and),
digressives, hao (well) are all excluded. Considering the fact that DMs can be multifunctional, a descriptive proposal of DMs in Chinese needs to be further defined, classified,
and elaborated.

DISCOURSE MARKERS? AN AREA OF CONFUSION

41

5. DISCOURSE MARKERS IN PEDAGOGICAL SETTINGS


In pedagogical discourse, DMs can be found operating in four realms of functional
categories, namely interpersonal, referential, structural and cognitive level (Fung and Carter,
2007). So far, little attention has been paid to the use and functions of DMs as one essential
interactional factor in classroom teacher-student conversation. The studies on DMs in
classroom context are also limited to L2 learners acquisition rather than teacher talk (Fung
and Carter, 2007; Yu, 2008).
The use and functions of DMs as one essential interactional factor in teacher talk. In fact,
the appropriate use of DMs in classroom not only can improve the participation of the
students but also contribute to the effectiveness of learning (Othman, 2010). It is important
that more researches and attempts are needed to probe on the issue.
There are still few exceptions though. For instance, Othman (2010) investigated three
specific DMs okay, right and yeah used by NS lecturers in Lancaster University, UK. It is
found that college lecturers use DMs as signposts on structural level when taking turns in
lecturing as a subconscious behaviour, observed by Othman (2010). The study uses
naturalistic video recorded data and interviews with lecturers to cross-check the interpretation
from both the lecturers and the researchers point of view. It recognizes the functional
significance of those three DMs in conversational interactions when organizing utterances.
In Chinese context, Yu (2008) investigated interpersonal meaning of DMs in Chinese
EFL classroom within the framework of systemic functional linguistics. In her article, DMs
are studied in six moves of the process of teaching: opening, information checking,
information clarification, responding, comment and repetition. According to Yu (2008), the
appropriate use of DMs can improve the effectiveness of classroom teaching. Liu (2006)
conducted a pragmatic analysis on one Chinese literature class and concluded that teachers
DMs have five major textual functions: connect, transfer, generalize, explain and repair. In
the process of constructing classroom context, he argued that DMs contribute to the functions
of discussion, emotion control and adjust of social relationship (Liu, 2006).
Though little attention has been paid to the use and functions of DMs in a pedagogical
environment, DMs are constantly used in teacher language to help creating an effective flow
of information from teachers to students in different stages of learning process, if used
appropriately (Yu, 2008). Different from other applications, DMs used by EFL teachers also
assist to realize certain pedagogical purposes that direct EFL classroom lesson plan (Walsh,
2006). In classroom context, DMs function as a lubricant in interaction to reduce
understanding difficulties, incoherence and social distance among students, and between
teacher and student (Walsh, 2006; Fung and Carter, 2007). DMs in teacher talk play an
important role for students to understand teacher language better, which hence helps them to
improve learning efficiency. As it is observed, DMs perform both social and educational
functions simultaneously in classroom context. The relationship between DMs and efficacy
of classroom interaction is still not yet fully presented.

42

YANG, Shanru

6. CONCLUSION
In this article, I have discussed the confusion in the study of DMs in terms of
terminology, classification and characteristics. Different approaches to analyse DMs are also
presented and evaluated. It can be noted that the reason behind the confusion in the
terminology and analytical method is because of various research perspectives. DMs in
Chinese, in particular, have not yet been investigated thoroughly. In pedagogical settings, less
attention has been paid to the effect of DMs and their function in teacher talk, though many
studies have suggested that there is a positive effect of DMs in classroom interaction as
effective conversational endeavours (Othman, 2010). Researchers, therefore, should develop
complex analytical frames in relation to the local context to unveil the multi-functionality of
DMs.

References
AIJMER, Karin (2002), English Discourse Particles. Evidence from a Corpus, Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
ARCHAKIS, Argiris (2001), On discourse markers: Evidence from modern Greek, Journal of
pragmatics 33(8): 1235-1262.
ARIEL, Mira (1998), Discourse markers and form-function correlations, in A. H. JUCKER and Y.
ZIV (eds.), Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory, Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V.
BLAKEMORE, Diane (1992), Understanding utterances, Oxford: Blackwell.
BOLDEN, Galina B. (2006), Little words that matter: Discourse markers so and oh and the doing
of other-attentiveness in social interaction, Journal of Communication 56(4): 661-688.
BRINTON, Laurel J. (1996), Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse
functions. Berlin: Mouton.
CHAUDRON, Craig and RICHARDS, Jack C. (1986), The effect of discourse markers on the
comprehension of lecture, Applied Linguistics 7(2): 112-127.
CHEN, Yiya (2001), Dui bu dui as a pragmatic marker: Evidence from Chinese classroom discourse,
Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1441-465.
COHEN, Esther, (2007), Discourse markers: Context and context sensitivity. Retrieved on 9
December, 2011, from: www.biu.ac.il/js/hb/ils/cohen2007.pdf
CUENCA, Maria Josep (2008), Pragmatic markers in contrast: The case of well, Journal of
Pragmatics 40(8): 1373-1391.
DE FINA, Anna (1997), An analysis of Spanish Bien as a marker of classroom management in
teacher student interaction, Journal of Pragmatics 28: 337-354.
FISCHER, Kerstin (2006), Approaches to Discourse Particles, Amsterdam: Elsevier.
FRANK-JOB, Barbara (2006), A dynamic-interactional approach to discourse markers, in: Fischer, K
(ed.), Approaches to discourse particles, Amsterdam: Elsevier.
FRASER, Bruce (1999), What are discourse markers?, Journal of Pragmatics 31: 931-952.
FENG, Guangwu (2008), Pragmatic Markers in Chinese, Journal of Pragmatics 40: 1687-1718.
FULLER, Janet M. (2003), Use of the discourse marker like in interviews, Journal of
Sociolinguistics 7: 365-377.

DISCOURSE MARKERS? AN AREA OF CONFUSION

43

FUNG, Loretta (2003), The use and teaching of discourse markers in Hong Kong: students
production and teachers perspectives. PhD thesis, University of Nottingham.
FUNG, Loretta and CARTER, Ronald (2007), Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and
learner use in pedagogical settings, Applied Linguistics 28(3): 410-439.
GONZLEZ, Montserrat (2004), Pragmatic markers in oral narrative: The case of English and
Catalan, Amsterdam: John Benjamins B. V.
GNTHNER, Suzanne (2000), From concessive connector to discourse marker: The use of obwohl in
everyday German interaction, in E. COUPER-KUHLEN and B. KORTMANN (eds.), Cause,
condition, concession, contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
HALLIDAY, M. A. K. and HASAN, Ruqaiya H. (1976), Cohesion in English, London: Longman.
HANSEN, Maj-Britt Mosegaard (2006), A dynamic polysemy approach to the lexical semantics of
discourse markers (with an exemplary analysis of French toujours), in F. KERSTIN (ed.),
Approaches to Discourse Particles, Amsterdam: Elsevier.
HAKULINEN, Auli (1998), The use of Finnish nyt as a discours particle, in A. H. JUCKER and Y. ZIV
(eds.), Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory, Amsterdam: John Benjamins B. V.
HAN, Ge Ling (2008), Pragmatic markers: Toward bi-directional optimalization in communication,
Nanjing: Southeast University Press.
IFANTIDOU, Elly (2000), Procedural encoding of explicatures by the Mod- ern Greek particle taha,
in G. ANDERSEN and T. FRETHEIM (eds.), Pragmatic markers and prepositional attitude,
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins B.V.
JUCKER, Andreas H. and SMITH, Sara W. (1998), And people just you know like wow: Discourse
markers as negotiating strategies, in A. H. JUCKER and Y. ZIV (eds.), Discourse markers:
Descriptions and theory, Amsterdam: John Benjamins B. V.
JUCKER, Andreas H. and ZIV, Yael (1998), Discourse markers: Introduction, in A. H. JUCKER and
Y. ZIV (eds.), Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory, Amsterdam: John Benjamins B. V.
LENK, Uta (1998), Discourse markers and global coherence in conversation, Journal of pragmatics
30(2): 245-257.
LIU, Shu-xin (2006), Teachers discourse markers and classroom context, Journal of Hunan
Institute of Humanities (Science and Technology) 4: 148-150.
MASCHLER, Yael (1998), Rots lishmoa kta? Wanna hear something weird/funny? [lit. a segment]:
Segmenting Israeli Hebrew talk-in-action, in A. H. JUCKER and Y. ZIV (eds.), Discourse
markers: Descriptions and theory, Amsterdam: John Benjamins B. V.
MLLER, Simone (2004), Well you know that type of person: Functions of well in the speech of
American and German students, Journal of Pragmatics 33: 193-208.
OTHMAN, Zarina (2010), The use of okay, right and yeah in academic lectures by native speaker
lecturers: Their anticipated and real meanings, Discourse Studies 12(5): 665-681.
PARK, Yong-Yae (1998), The Korean connective nuntey in conversational discourse, Journal of
Pragmatics 31(2): 191-218.
REDEKER, Gisela (1990), Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure, Journal of
Pragmatics 14: 367-381.
SCHIFFRIN, Deborah (1987), Discourse markers, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2003), Discourse markers: Language, meaning and context, in D. SCHIFFRIN, D. TANNEN
and H. E. HAMILTON (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
SCHIFFRIN, Deborah, TANNEN, Deborah and HAMILTON, Heidi E. (2003), The handbook of discourse
analysis, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

44

YANG, Shanru

SCHLEEF, Erik (2004), Gender, power, discipline, and context: On the sociolinguistic variation of
okay, right, like, and you know in English academic discourse, Texas Linguistic Forum 48:
177-186.
SCHOURUP, Lawrence (1999), Discourse markers, Lingua 107: 227-265.
SU, Lily I-wen (2002), A cognitive exploration of Chinese connectives, in L. SU et al. (eds.), Form
and function: Linguistic studies in honour of Shuanfan Huang, Taipei: Crane publishing.
SUZUKI, Satoko (1998), Pejorative connotation: A case of Japanese, in A. H. JUCKER and Y. ZIV
(eds.), Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory, Amsterdam: John Benjamins B. V.
TAKAHARA, Paul Osamu (1998), Pragmatic functions of the English discourse marker anyway and
its corresponding contrastive Japanese discourse markers, in A. H. JUCKER and Y. ZIV (eds.),
Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory, Amsterdam: John Benjamins B. V.
TAY, Dennis (2011), Discourse markers as metaphor signalling devices in psychotherapeutic talk,
Language & Communication 31(4): 310-317.
TRESTER, Anna Marie (2009), Discourse marker oh as a means for realizing the identity potential
of constructed dialogue in interaction, Journal of Sociolinguistics 13(2): 147-168.
WALSH, Steve (2006), Investigating classroom discourse, New York: Routledge.
WANG, Yu-Fang et al. (2007), From informational to emotive use: meiyou (no) as a discourse
marker in Taiwan Mandarin conversation, Discourse Studies 9(5): 677-701.
WEI, Ming (2011), Investigating the oral proficiency of English learners in China: a comparative
study of the use of pragmatic markers, Journal of Pragmatics 43: 3455-3472.
WOUK, Fay (2001), Solidarity in Indonesian conversation: The discourse marker ya, Journal of
Pragmatics 33(2): 171-191.
YU, L. Q. (2008), Interpersonal meaning of discourse markers by foreign language teachers in
classroom, Journal of the Graduates of Sun Yat-Sen University (Social Sciences) 29(3): 129135.
ZIV, Yael (1998), Hebrew kaze as a discourse marker and lexical hedge: Conceptual and procedural
properties, in A. H. JUCKER and Y. ZIV (eds.), Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory,
Amsterdam: John Benjamins B. V.

También podría gustarte